5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
timothyandClaude Fable 5.1	a7d91bf15a	fix(876): sweep session narrative out of hooks, workflows, scripts, tests and code comments; grow the detector to the process corpus ... `docs.no-session-narrative` reaches every durable artifact, but its detector scanned only `docs/**/*.md` and root markdown, and nothing had ever swept the rest. The issue named four sites from one grep and called them a floor. Deriving the population instead — a whitespace-joined sweep over every tracked file outside the detector, for the detector's own phrasings plus the attribution and review-round class #812 found — gave 453 sites in 108 files at `fb5592971`, and a second pass for phrasings the first list missed (hyphenated `round-N`, "an earlier version", "the reviewer proved") added residuals in the same files. Every site was classified with #812's three dispositions (CUT / SEVER / KEEP with its sub-kind) under the who-benefits test; the per-site manifests are on the PR. The rejected designs, tested-and-rejected fixtures, measurements and traps stay; the attribution of who found them and the round in which they were found go. The detector's population grows to `.claude/`, `.gitea/`, `.husky/` and `scripts/` regardless of extension, minus the detector and its own test (whose fixtures ARE the phrasings) and minus `scripts/tests/fixtures/` (test data, including decision-record copies — the same reasoning as the records' own exemption, and what keeps the record's depth measurement true), and `--all` lists tracked REGULAR files only — a symlink's content is its target and a gitlink has none. The #812 argument for leaving `docs/superpowers/**` in the population runs the other way here: `--diff` sees only ADDED lines, and 287 of the 453 sites were under 30 days old — this corpus is where narrative is being added, so the advisory nudge has reach. Density agrees: 56 line-mode hits over the 113 regular files the predicate admits, against 9 over 66 docs files before #812. `web/` and C# stay out on the same measurement (3 of 74 PATTERNS-matching sites, ~4,600 files). The predicate did not grow: PATTERNS matched 74 of 453 sites, and widening the word list to the attribution class is the treadmill the withdrawn parity test ran on. The population oracle is restated over segments with the new arms, the synthetic cross product gains the process heads and non-markdown extensions, a fixture witnesses that a tracked symlink is neither scanned nor counted, a `.py.bak` axis separates a by-name exemption from a `startswith` over the same tuple, and eight mutants (drop the process arm, drop the by-name exemption, exempt by `startswith`, drop or add a prefix, drop the fixtures exemption, list only markdown, drop the symlink filter, test the mode per row instead of per path) each redden it. A pre-existing silent drop in `--diff` goes with it: git tab-terminates a `+++` filename that contains a space, and the kept tab made `is_scanned_path` refuse the file with no notice — fixed, with a positive control and its own mutant. Code is unchanged by construction, measured per file type against `origin/main`: Python modules are AST-equal with docstrings stripped, except `#` lines inside the embedded fixture programs (string literals) of three test modules; workflows differ only in `#` lines inside `run:` block scalars; shell, C#, TypeScript and jq are equal with comment lines stripped. The stated exceptions: the detector and its test, 26 vitest titles that carried review-round or severity labels or a reviewer attribution (call sites whose title changed — every changed title line walked back to its `it(` / `it.each(...)(` anchor, so a `' + '` concatenation counts once), two registry note strings and the mutation manifest's prose fields. scripts/tests: 1565 passed. Web: lint, typecheck, 1319 tests green. Closes #876. Decisions-Edit: yes Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PEcBoFw7ctrf3Nb7R7x7wk	2026-09-03 20:51:39 +02:00
timothyandtimothy	d4c72697f2	feat(780): commit a ruff config and enforce it in CI (#813) ... Python lint here was a property of the operator's laptop: the global instructions say to run ruff, no workflow ran it, and with no committed config ruff fell back to whichever ~/.config/ruff/ruff.toml the machine happened to have. - ruff.toml at the root, pinned ruff==0.12.11 in the script-tests job. - Both lint steps pass an EXPLICIT population from `git ls-files` with `--no-force-exclude`, never `ruff check .` — an `exclude` empties a discovery-based run into a GREEN one (top level empties both commands, [lint] empties check, [format] empties format --check), and `ruff check .` over zero files exits 0 with only a stderr warning. Guarded by an empty-population arm. - Tree clean: 74 findings at 706674272, 57 fixed in code, 17 per-site noqa with reasons inline. S105 deliberately per-site, not a directory blanket. RUF100 selected so a suppression that suppresses nothing is itself a finding. - pyright stays ungated; reasoning in the record. Both steps witnessed red on the runner against the shipped bodies: run 2173 job 9176 (ruff check) and run 2170 job 9163 (ruff format --check). Docs: new record ci.python-lint-ruff-config-committed, ci.script-tests-job cross-ref, docs/ci-cd.md (also correcting a stale ~190-tests/~10s figure to the measured 773 tests / ~4.5 min), docs/defect-shapes-773.md §5.2 resolved. fixes #780 Co-authored-by: Timothy <timothy@noreply.gitea.tblindustries.be>	2026-08-22 00:33:18 +00:00
timothy	ed8de77e10	fix(632): validate status ROWS, not just the top-level array — the same swallow one level down ... Re-review caught my previous fix claiming more than it delivered. "Every unreadable input asks" was false: validating only that `.statuses` is an array left `{"statuses":[1]}` passing the guard, after which `.context` on a number errors and the `|| true` on the extraction turned that error into an empty description — straight back onto the graceful-adoption path the guard exists to distinguish from. The identical swallow-the-error shape I had just fixed a few lines up, surviving one level deeper. The validation domain now matches the CONSUMPTION domain: every row must be an object with a string `.context` and a `.description` that is absent or a string. The extraction drops its `|| true` and asks explicitly instead, since a swallowed error there is indistinguishable from a benign "no base recorded". Both guards are load-bearing, for DIFFERENT shapes — established by mutating them together and separately rather than assuming the pair was redundant: - a non-string `.description` is caught ONLY by the row validation (jq -r renders the object as JSON, the sed finds no `(base: …)`, and it silently reads as a legacy verdict); - a scalar row is caught by EITHER, so with the validation weakened the extraction guard is what still asks. Also noted rather than changed: this is the third read of the same status endpoint in a worst-case hook run. Sharing one snapshot would close a narrow same-run disagreement window, but the other two branches derive different decisions from a failed read, so threading a shared response through them changes pre-existing logic rather than #632's. Recorded in place so it is not rediscovered as an oversight — every `decide` exits immediately, so the reads cannot produce one self-contradictory message. Refs #632	2026-07-26 23:38:14 +02:00
timothy	d51255a8ef	fix(632): "could not check" is a third outcome, not a quiet synonym for "nothing to check" ... Cold review's substantive finding. The first draft collapsed an unreadable status response into the graceful-adoption path: `vdesc` came back empty, so `recorded_base` was empty, so the comparison was skipped IN SILENCE — and a later, successful status read could then auto-grant, emitting "merge gate: satisfied" for a comparison that never happened. A transient Gitea hiccup is not evidence that the base is unchanged. The unreadable status response and a PR with no resolvable `.base.ref` now both fall through to a human `ask`, leaving exactly one benign silent case: a verdict that predates #632 and could not have carried the field. The emptiness check is done in SHELL before jq sees it, same jq-1.6 rule as the rest of this file. Also from review: the graceful-adoption test asserted only that the decision lacked the issue tag, so it would have passed for a base-specific ask or deny whose wording omitted it — the failure mode most likely to appear when someone edits these messages. It now asserts on the word "base". Recorded rather than fixed, because fixing it would be worse: docs-only PRs exit before this check, since that carve-out short-circuits the gate earlier. It does not auto-grant — it passes through to an ordinary permission prompt — so the exposure is a missing warning on a merge a human is already confirming, not a silent merge. The record now says so instead of implying the deny is unconditional. Mutation-verified: collapsing the unreadable case back into graceful adoption, skipping the check on a missing live base, and dropping the mismatch deny each redden their own test and nothing else. Refs #632	2026-07-26 23:27:22 +02:00
timothy	00e623c066	fix(632): bind a review verdict to its BASE branch, not only to its head sha ... #622 made `review-verdict/h10` a per-sha required status, so a new commit cannot inherit an old verdict — the required context is simply absent on the new head. Retargeting a PR's base reaches the same end from the opposite direction: the head sha and the status both hold still while the merge-base, and therefore the effective diff the verdict was formed against, changes underneath them. #622's record claimed the invariant holds "by construction"; this was the documented exception, and an unrecorded exception is how a guarantee degrades into a habit. `post-review-verdict.sh` now records the base branch in the status description as a trailing `(base: <ref>)`, and refuses to write a status at all if the base moved between reading the PR and posting — the same TOCTOU window the head check already covers, which the head check cannot see because retargeting does not move the head. `pretooluse-merge-consent.sh` reads the field back and denies when it no longer matches the PR's live `base.ref`. Two choices are load-bearing, and each is pinned by a test rather than left to a comment: - The comparator is `base.ref`, NOT `base.sha`. `base.sha` tracks the base branch's tip, which moves whenever anything merges to `main` — comparing it would invalidate every open verdict on every unrelated merge, converting a rare-event guard into a permanent merge deadlock. A base that merely advances is out of scope by design: rebasing onto it moves the head sha, which the per-sha binding already covers. - The field goes in the status DESCRIPTION, not the verdict comment. The comment body is parsed by `scripts/check-review-verdict.sh`, whose grammar had three false-opens in its history (#629); nothing parses the description, so this adds a field without reopening that surface. Scope is stated honestly rather than overclaimed: this is DETECTION on the hook path only. A commit status carries no base of its own, so the server-side required check cannot see a retarget, and a merge driven through the Gitea UI or API is unaffected. That is the accepted exposure — base changes are rare, manual, and this is a two-account repo — but it now fails loud in the one place that evaluates consent, instead of living only in a doc. Verdicts posted before this change carry no `(base: …)` and get NO opinion rather than a deny; denying would block every in-flight PR the day it lands, and the window closes on its own since verdicts are per-head and short-lived. Verified by mutation, six mutants, each killed by its intended test: remove the hook's deny; compare base.sha instead of base.ref; drop graceful adoption; stop recording the base; drop the TOCTOU guard; accept a PR with no resolvable base. The positive controls matter more than usual here — the test PR is deliberately non-docs (a docs-only PR short-circuits the whole gate and would never reach the base check) and the rest of the gate is unstubbed, so "the hook denied" alone proves nothing. Refs #632 Decisions-Edit: yes	2026-07-26 23:13:50 +02:00